Pharmaceutical drugs can work positive wonders. Unfortunately, if abused or misused, they can be terribly harmful. In today’s fast-paced world, simple errors involving prescription medicine are not uncommon. From a scribbled doctor’s prescription, to failing to learn of allergies or the contraindications of mixing medicines, to dispensing medication to the wrong patient, mistakes happen. The numbers are staggering.
Continue reading
Parties and witnesses involved in legal proceedings should follow these basic rules when being deposed:
People may be surprised to learn that accidents that occur on property from hazards which are open and obvious, are not absolutely barred by law from being the fault of the landowner. The primary legal significance of hazards being open and obvious is that landowners are under no duty to warn of the conditions, but this rule does not completely foreclose victims from legal remedies. In contrast, when perils are concealed and known or should be known to landowners, and unknown to invitees (persons rightfully on property) even with the exercise of reasonable care, landlords also have a duty to warn invitees.
Continue reading
In a conscious effort to create a negative view of trial lawyers and civil lawsuits, Corporate America has for years distorted the truth about the famous McDonalds coffee spill case, the poster child for the frivolous lawsuits mantra. Sadly, the public has fallen for the propoganda hook, line and sinker.
Why, might you ask, would Corporate America wish to turn the public against trial lawyers and civil lawsuits? The answer is simple. Profits over people. By limiting the right of individuals to seek redress against big business, they become less accountable for their negligent conduct. Civil lawsuits make big business pay for its negligence. Limit civil lawsuits, limit accountability.
How, might you ask, does the propoganda limit accountability? The unknowing and gullible public presses its politicians to do something about the “lawsuit crisis.” “Conservative” legislators, all too happy to take up the cause – although not without a price – you can be sure that the loudest political voices for curtailing civil lawsuits, receive the most money from big business – devise laws with the effect of making it ever more difficult to take on big business in our courts of law. Barring the courthouse doors, so to speak, from “We, the People.” It has been happening for years, and it’s not pretty. Frankly, it is frightening. Big business run amock.
Back to the McDonalds coffee spill case.
Background: In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded a woman 2.9 million in a case arising out of hot coffee spilling onto her lap while sitting in a car driven by her grandson. The Plaintiff (the person who received the jury verdict) was a 79-year old retired sales clerk who had never before sued anyone. When she placed the coffee between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar, the scalding hot coffee spilled out onto her lap, causing third-degree burns on her groin and thigh area. She was hospitalized for eight days and incurred medical expenses in excess of $11,000. She was left with permanent pain and scarring. The jury trial lasted 7 days.
The untold story:
The jury awarded damages of $200,000, reduced to $160,000 based on the plaintiff’s 20% negligence for spilling the coffee, and punitive damages (for conduct held to be willful, malicious and reckless) in the amount of $2.7 million, later reduced by the trial judge to $480,000. Both sides appealed and later reached a confidential settlement. Interestingly, One day after the jury verdict, the coffee temperature at the restaurant in location was tested and had been reduced to 158 degrees.
Continue reading
Individuals injured in Florida accidents through the negligence of others may be entitled to compensation for their injuries. To determine fair compensation value, the injuries must be documented and treated by qualified medical professionals. Unfortunately, not everyone has insurance or other means to pay for medical care. Thankfully, some medical providers will provide care to genuinely injured individuals on the expectation of receiving payment from the personal injury case recovery. Because of the uncertainty of achieving success in the personal injury case, it is a risk for the medical providers, who often invest substantial amounts of time and resources, to provide the care. Fortunately, the medical providers understand the risk and do not expect the patient to pay out-of-pocket when no recovery is made. Due to the risk, medical providers limit this service to trustworthy lawyers willing to provide an honest analysis of the eventual outcome of the underlying case.
Hats off to these professionals for providing this valuable service.
*************************************************
In simple terms, the human spine consists of bones (vertebrae), the spinal cord, nerves, and intervertebral discs. The spinal cord is about 18 inches in length and extends from the base of the brain, surrounded by the vertebral bodies, down the middle of the back, to about the waist. The nerves branch out from the spinal cord to carry signals throughout the body.
Intervertebral discs, composed of a gel-like substance (nucleus pulposus) contained within an outer skin (anulus fibrosus), sit between the bony vertebrae. They act as shock absorbers between the vertebrae and allow the spine to be flexible. The spinal cord runs parallel to the intervertebral discs within the spinal column.
Healthy intervertebral discs pose no threat to the spinal cord and nerve roots. However, trauma associated with accidents (slip & fall; motor vehicle crashes) may cause the nucleus pulposus to bulge or herniate (rupture). A bulge is when the nucleus pulposus becomes distorted but remains contained within the anulus fibrosis. A herniation is when the nucleus pulposus breaks through the anulus fibrosis.
Continue reading
Florida personal injury lawyers face the difficult task of convincing insurance adjusters, opposing lawyers, judges and juries that occupants in vehicles suffering only minor property damage from crashes have sustained significant injuries. Common sense and logic seem to be working against Plaintiffs’ lawyers – ‘how can there be serious personal injuries without significant property damage?’ The answer is that there is more to the dynamics of a crash than meets the eye.
Vehicle damage is just one factor of many in determining impact speed. Many parameters such as vehicle masses, impact angles, the pre-impact velocity of both vehicles, crush resistance, metallurgical fatigue, etc., effect how the bumpers behave during an impact. One example of the variability is that older vehicles generally have stronger bumpers and can absorb greater impacts while showing less damage than newer cars where style dominates over function.
This is a complex subject that will touched on in greater detail in later blogs.
Thanks to thoughtful and well-reasoned legislation and court decisions, Floridians can have a reasonable expectation that their own liability insurance companies will act in their best interests. That may soon be changing.
When handling claims, Insurance companies have a duty to act in the best interests of their insureds. This is especially so when insureds are at risk on claims in which the value of the claim (i.e., exposure) exceeds the limits of coverage under the policy of insurance. In those instances, insurance companies are required to do everything within reason to resolve claims within coverage limits. Failing to do so may expose insureds to judgments in excess of policy coverage limits. When this is the result of insurance company indifference or neglect, the carrier may be responsible for paying the excess judgment. This is known as bad faith law and it has been the driving force for more than 30 years in Florida behind insurance companies honoring their duty to handle claims in good faith.
Continue reading
On February 10, 2010, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in MIami reversed a jury verdict rendered against the Archdiocese of Miami and Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High School arising out of a catastrophic car crash in 2001. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Gabriel Maynoldi, sustained severe brain damage and is a quadraplegic. Gabriel needs around-the-clock medical care.
The accident happened after Gabriel and his best friend, both 17, left an end-of-the-year school party held in a private home where alcohol was being served. More than 100 fellow students attended the party. Both boys were drunk when they drove off in a motor vehicle and crashed. The other young boy was killed in the crash.
The plaintiffs, including Gabriel’s parents, argued that the Archdiocese and the high school should be held partly responsible for allegedly sanctioning and promoting the party. The jury agreed, and assessed damages against the Archdiocese totaling $12 million. The District Court disagreed, ruling that a school’s obligation to supervise students ends when a student leaves the school’s premises and is no longer involved in school-related activities.
Until recently, every owner of a motor vehicle in Florida was responsible for damages caused by crashes involving the negligent operation of their/its vehicles by permissive users. The concept behind the legal principle is that motor vehicles are dangerous instrumentalities to be used with great care and caution, and that by holding the owner accountable careless vehicle lending/leasing practices will be minimized.
With one glaring exception, this law remains in effect in Florida today. The major exception applies to car rental companies.
In 2005, the United States Congress, at the urging of the Bush Administration, passed a legislative measure known as the Graves Amendment. The law preempts the laws of the individual states, including Florida, over the responsibility of car rental companies for accidents involving vehicles owned by them. Unlike Florida law, the federal law appears to have limited, if not altogether eliminated, the legal responsibility of rental companies for damages caused by their vehicles.
Florida Injury Attorney Blawg